Finding Strong Groups of Friends among Friends in Social Networks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past few years, the rapid growth and the exponential use of social digital media has led to an increase in popularity of social networks and the emergence of social computing. In general, social networks are structures made of social entities (e.g., individuals) that are linked by some specific types of interdependency such as friendship. Most users of social media (e.g., Face book, Google+, Linked In, My Space, Twitter) have many linkages in terms of friends, connections, and/or followers. Among all these linkages, some of them are more important than another. For instance, some friends of a user may be casual ones who acquaintances met him at some points in time, whereas some others may be friends that care about him in such a way that they frequently post on his wall, view his updated profile, send him messages, invite him for events, and/or follow his tweets. In this paper, we apply data mining techniques to social networks to help users of the social digital media to distinguish these important friends from a large number of friends in their social networks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it